|
sponsons really work! (BS)
|
sponsons really work! (BS)
Mary Malmros wrote in message ...
(Backyard Renegade) writes: Mary Malmros wrote in message ... (William R. Watt) writes: no BS. I put sponsons on a 7.5 ft sailboat. Keep them above the waterline where they don't add to hull resistance through the water. Without teh sponsons I'd never get back into the boat after a cpasize. You MUST be kidding. I could right a Sailfish on my own when I was six years old. Okay, it took a little work, but... Wow, impressive... Not really. It's not that hard -- that's kind of the point. But he did not say anything about righting a boat, he said he wanted to re-enter the boat. And leave it upside down, hmm? They sail real good that way ;-) If you, or he, knows a way to re-enter and roll a sailboat with the sails still on it, I'm prepared to genuflect in awe. Not everyone here is a olypmic star or was raised in boats.. Add me to the "not everyone". Never an Olympic star or even an Olympic jock-washer. BTW, according to what I know, William was... and although he may not be a 35 yo buff, X generation, global jaunting, look at me, only the best equipment type guy, there is actually a possibility he has spent more time in smallboats than even you! Sure it's a possibility. So who said otherwise? Sometimes you folks here need to remember, it is still a paddling group and there are more than just WW paddlers posting here and some of us just want to make things easier for ourselves so our fun, is not so much work. And sometimes you folks that are listing strongly to one side need to get yourselves a crane and remove that mountain-sized chip from your shoulder. Buy all the sponsons you want, and festoon your car with 'em if you choose. My comment was simply because I'm danged if I can see why they'd be necessary to get back in a capsized 7.5 foot sailboat. I still don't see why, and I don't think you've given me any more information on that. I am listing to one side, just not the side you think... Personally I still fall in the camp that if you need spondoms, you are probably in the wrong boat or in conditions you should not be in **in most cases**. I happen to be familiar with Wills boating habits and access through his postings to other newsgroups and if Will says he needs these spondoms to get back into his boat, he probably does. Personally I would not use spondoms for anything more than waterbottles. they might also make good pool toys for the kids... just not attached to any boat! Scotty |
sponsons really work! (BS)
Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
Peter typed: I don't think it's careless at all. My "Standard College Dictionary" gives as the third definition of sponson "An air tank built into the sides of a canoe to improve stability and prevent sinking." The air tanks under the seats of the dinghies I sailed were "built into the sides of those boats to improve stability and prevent sinking" and on that basis I asserted that they acted as internal sponsons. There can be NO SUCH THING as an "internal sponson". That doesn't seem to be the view of my dictionary, nor is it the view of Klepper, Folbot, or Feathercraft, which all refer to the air chambers located inside the hulls of their boats as sponsons. My apologies, Peter, but... The only references available to me right now are online. However, the view of your dictionary seems to be outvoted, six to one (either that, or, as I believe is more likely, you are stretching "built into the sides" to mean "built from side to side"). Three of the six references below show no reasonable application to canoes or kayaks. In that case we are either all incorrectly using the word "sponson" since we are all talking about something related to kayaks/canoes, or those three references are totally irrelevant to the discussion. Of the three which mention canoes, one says "on the gunwale", one says "along each side", and one says "along a canoe". Although none specifically says so, I s'pose the air chamber could be on the INSIDE of the hull, but "along", "along each side", and "on the gunwhale" can in no way be stretched to mean "under the thwart". Furthermore, two of these three references also mention "stability", which can only be achieved by external sponsons. Only if you assume that the stability referred to is when there is no water inside the boat. But the whole point of the flotation chambers in most boats is for support in the event the boat gets swamped and it is in that circumstance that they can offer both improved stability and resistance to sinking. So as I see it, three of your references are irrelevant since they include no definition that pertains to kayaks or similar boats, and the other three are ambiguous as to whether the flotation is inside or outside the hull - the important factor appears to be that it is located near the side of the vessel rather than in the middle or at the bow or stern. This is the important functional characteristic since flotation placed near the sides will keep the swamped boat from rolling over much more effectively than flotation in other locations. In this they agree with my Funk & Wagnall's dictionary which used the phrase "built into the sides of the canoe." So, in these six definitions, we have: 3 making no reference to canoes or kayaks 2 expecting the sponson to provide stability to a canoe 1 expecting sponsons (along each side) to keep a canoe afloat I disregard the usage of three porta-boat makers, two of which are not from an English-speaking country, who may have distorted the meaning of the word for their own purposes, and since you have not provided links, Porta-boat (they actually use "Porta-Bote" but trademark both terms) is a totally different kind of craft which has never been brought up in this discussion before - AFAIK it does not have any sponsons in its design. If you are referring to the folding kayak manufacturers, then please explain to the citizens of either Charleston or Vancouver that they do not speak English (the citizens of Rosenheim would presumably be willing to agree that it's not their primary language, but that company does have US representatives who also refer to the boat's "sponsons"). I didn't provide any links since they seemed too obvious to include, but I'll do so he www.klepper.com, www.feathercraft.com, www.folbot.com. All have references to the sponsons used on many of their models. I'm dammed [sic] if I'm gonna go chasing them down to confirm yer [sic] assertion. |
sponsons really work! (BS)
(William R. Watt) writes:
"Michael Daly" ) writes: BTW dictionaries are famous for getting definitions wrong - especially in scientific and technical terminology. My Webster's here says that oxygen is the most plentiful element in the universe. I think you mean "atmosphere", not "universe". I'd check that dictionary definitions again. Can someone point me to a source of inexpensive, reliable irony meters? Mine just broke with a rending snap. [snip] On this subject of getting back into capsized boats, I've done in in canoes, sailing dingys, and once in a kayak. The problem in lightweight narrow boats is getting one's hips over the gunwale. You may not be aware of this, but -- at least in the case of kayaks -- there is a distinction between getting back in a capsized boat, and righting a boat that has been capsized and then climbing back in. You use the former terminology, but from your description below, it seems that you are actually talking about the latter. Most sailboats have to be wide to carry sail. The one I built out of a single sheet of plywood is narrow like a kayak. To carry sail and to re-enter after a capsize the sponsons are needed. When you re-enter a kayak you normally pull yourself up onto the rear deck and slide forward until you can straddle the boat and drop your butt into the seat. That's not the method I've learned, but I'm sure it works. On a boat with no rear deck, like my small sailboat, and also I think on a kayak, you can enter from the side by first sticking a floatation device under your hips to raise them to the surface so you can slide them in over the gunwale. That's the way I have re-enterd the sailboat. I sit on a floation cushion when using the boat and shove the flotation cusion under my hips to re-enter the boat after a capsize. However I only did that once as a test because the sponsons have prevented any capsizes since they were installed. It's not a very conventional method, but I'm sure it works. More common are paddle float reentry and its variants. -- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, Other days you're the bug. |
sponsons really work! (BS)
snip wild discussion about chemistry and cosmology
Please tell me you guys *aren't* arguing about which element is most prevalent in the universe, on RBP, in a thread that originally concerned the use of sponsons?!?! Maybe this is worth posting to sci.chem? :-) |
sponsons really work! (BS)
Peter typed:
Oci-One Kanubi wrote: Peter typed: I don't think it's careless at all. My "Standard College Dictionary" gives as the third definition of sponson "An air tank built into the sides of a canoe to improve stability and prevent sinking." The air tanks under the seats of the dinghies I sailed were "built into the sides of those boats to improve stability and prevent sinking" and on that basis I asserted that they acted as internal sponsons. There can be NO SUCH THING as an "internal sponson". That doesn't seem to be the view of my dictionary, nor is it the view of Klepper, Folbot, or Feathercraft, which all refer to the air chambers located inside the hulls of their boats as sponsons. My apologies, Peter, but... The only references available to me right now are online. However, the view of your dictionary seems to be outvoted, six to one (either that, or, as I believe is more likely, you are stretching "built into the sides" to mean "built from side to side"). Three of the six references below show no reasonable application to canoes or kayaks. In that case we are either all incorrectly using the word "sponson" since we are all talking about something related to kayaks/canoes, or those three references are totally irrelevant to the discussion. Of the three which mention canoes, one says "on the gunwale", one says "along each side", and one says "along a canoe". Although none specifically says so, I s'pose the air chamber could be on the INSIDE of the hull, but "along", "along each side", and "on the gunwhale" can in no way be stretched to mean "under the thwart". Furthermore, two of these three references also mention "stability", which can only be achieved by external sponsons. Only if you assume that the stability referred to is when there is no water inside the boat. But the whole point of the flotation chambers in most boats is for support in the event the boat gets swamped and it is in that circumstance that they can offer both improved stability and resistance to sinking. So as I see it, three of your references are irrelevant since they include no definition that pertains to kayaks or similar boats, Huh? Suppose you find a definition of "hull" that refers to ships, barges, dinghies, and canoes. Will you then conclude that the definition is irrelevant to any discussion of *kayaks*? I mean, jeez, Merriam-Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) definition of "tire" mentions an automobile wheel. Does the lack of mention of a bicycle mean that the definition is irrelevant in the context of a bicycle? The definitions say what the object IS; the examples of where it might appear are merely *examples*. And what a sponson IS, according to the definitions, is a protuberance from a hull. And if it protrudes, it is not internal, which was my original point. and the other three are ambiguous as to whether the flotation is inside or outside the hull - the important factor appears to be that it is located near the side of the vessel rather than in the middle or at the bow or stern. This is the important functional characteristic since flotation placed near the sides will keep the swamped boat from rolling over much more effectively than flotation in other locations. In this they agree with my Funk & Wagnall's dictionary which used the phrase "built into the sides of the canoe." This is starting to get a bit silly, but look: EVERY definition of "sponson" has, as primary definition, "a protuberance from the hull". EVERY one. Tim Ingram's sponsons lash to the outside of the hull. Thus they are removble protuberances. Thus they fit the primary definition, by (Funk & Wagnall's brings us up to 8) all dictionaries consulted. And every definition that mentions canoes says, in some way, "along" the hull (not athwart the vessel like yer underseat floatation chambers). Look at http://www.castlecraft.com/sportspal_double-end.htm and you will see a photograph of "sponsons" that are clearly attached to the OUTSIDE of the hull, along the length of the hull. Yet you continue, in the paragraph above, to go on at great length about "floatation". Yes. YES. YES! YESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!! You are absolutely correct! "Floatation" is all the good things you say it is. But this discussion is not about "floatation", per se; it is about "sponsons", in general, and about detachable inflatable "sponsons", in particular. When you write a long paragraph, as the one above, truly and correctly extolling the virtues of "floatation", I can only agree, but when you use this paean to floatation as a defense of "sponsons", it is incorrect, and confuses the issue. I'm baffled, Peter, utterly baffled. Why do you persist in trying to distort the meaning of this word? Just look at an illustration of a seaplane hull (the example cited in the secondary meaning, in most definitions), and you will see how the circular cross-section of the hull is squared off in the chines just above the waterline. These are sponsons, "along the hull", on the outside of the hull, to provide stability. The folding-boat manufacturers have evidently misappropriated this word (in the whitewater canoe and kayak world, we refer to these internal things as either "air bags" or as "floatation"). But because folding-boat manufacturers misuse nautical terminology in their narrow context is no reason for us to misuse it in any wider context. I mean, in none of the eight definitions thus far adduced has there been a single reference to any ***internal*** floatation chamber or bag. All I am trying to do is get you to understand that you ruin any attempt to honestly debate the utility of sponsons (Ingram's inflatable ones or any others) when you use the word "sponson" to describe something else. You even admit that "...it is located near the side of the vessel rather than in the middle or at the bow or stern. This is the important functional characteristic...", which clearly precludes the inclusion of yer underseat floatation chambers, which is all I was trying to say in the first place. [snip] If you are referring to the folding kayak manufacturers, then please explain to the citizens of either Charleston or Vancouver that they do not speak English (the citizens of Rosenheim would presumably be willing to agree that it's not their primary language, [snip] My mistake. I thought two of 'em were German. Charleston (SC?) and Vancouver (BC?) are two seaport towns, so one would have hoped that their residents would get nautical terminology right. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty -- ================================================== ==================== Richard Hopley, Winston-Salem, NC, USA rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net 1-301-775-0471 Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll. rhople[at]wfubmc[dot]edu 1-336-713-5077 OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters. ================================================== ==================== |
sponsons really work! (BS)
Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
Peter typed: Oci-One Kanubi wrote: Peter typed: I don't think it's careless at all. My "Standard College Dictionary" gives as the third definition of sponson "An air tank built into the sides of a canoe to improve stability and prevent sinking." The air tanks under the seats of the dinghies I sailed were "built into the sides of those boats to improve stability and prevent sinking" and on that basis I asserted that they acted as internal sponsons. There can be NO SUCH THING as an "internal sponson". That doesn't seem to be the view of my dictionary, nor is it the view of Klepper, Folbot, or Feathercraft, which all refer to the air chambers located inside the hulls of their boats as sponsons. .... All I am trying to do is get you to understand that you ruin any attempt to honestly debate the utility of sponsons (Ingram's inflatable ones or any others) when you use the word "sponson" to describe something else. You even admit that "...it is located near the side of the vessel rather than in the middle or at the bow or stern. This is the important functional characteristic...", which clearly precludes the inclusion of yer underseat floatation chambers, which is all I was trying to say in the first place. No, the seats in typical sailing dinghies are built into the sides of the hull. One generally sits on the windward side facing the lee side of the boat. The main flotation chambers in these craft are under the seats and therefore also right along the side of the hull where they provide considerable stability when the boat is swamped. Their placement is entirely consistent with the dictionary definition stating "An air tank built into the sides of a [canoe] to improve stability and prevent sinking." Functionally this placement of the flotation chambers in sailing dinghies provides sufficient stability of the swamped boat so that the user is able to reenter it fairly easily, bail it out, and then continue on. That was also the primary function of the external sponsons demonstrated in the kayak self-rescue class that I attended. All you seem to want to do is to debate the etymology of the word, which seems to have originated in connection with gun platforms mounted at the sides of boats, then applied to flotation placed in a similar position on the outside of the hull, and is now used by many, including kayak manufacturers, to include flotation in a similar position but inside the hull. You clearly vehemently object to this last migration in usage. Frankly I have no desire to further debate the etymology. |
sponsons really work! (BS)
"Seakayaker" ) writes:
The technique of using a floatation cushion would not work in any rough water conditions that would have caused me to capsize in the first place. you offer no proof of that claim. I dare you to prove it. Don't give up after a couple half hearted atempts. Keep trying until you get desperate and are near death. If you still can't manage it and die in the attmept, them maybe I'll believe you but I'd more likely put it down to lack of competence. I'd prefer to see the test replicated a few times by other obnoxious kayak paddlers before accepting the claim. However I'd easily refute the claim by accomplishing the re-entry a single time. What keeps the cushion from floating away? two things, hands and handles. sometimes maybe three, teeth. How do you hold the boat, your paddle, and the cushion while you try to get it under your hips? are you sure you've been in a boat before, or is this one of those "toll" questions? ever tried lowering a sail on a capsized boat in rough conditions? sailors do it. Have you ever tried this in 6 foot or higher breaking seas? there's *nothing* I haven't tried in 6 foot or higher waves. what millponds do you paddle in? 6 foot waves are for children. we get wakes on the canal higher than that. Then the technique of straddling a kayak is also not good for rough water entries. If I put my butt in the boat first, my legs will not get into the cockpit. that's what you get of buying a kayak with a tiny cockpit. why do some kayak fanatics choose speed over comfort and safety? and then diss sponsons? bloody irresponsible. .. Better techniques can be found in any of the many books and videos on the market for kayak re-entires and recoveries. oh yeah, Hand of God. I love that one. Like God gives a **** about kayakers. I consider anything that interferes with my kayak being put up on edge as unsafe. A boat that stays flat on the surface of the water cannot be controlled. A breaking wave will cause it to capsize with or without sponsons. anthing that interfers with putting you on edge where you cannot be controlled. sure. you should get a boat with a round bottom cross section. I don't know why some kayakers go out in waves in long narrow hard chined boats, V-bottoms, or those ridiculous hollow ends. nothing rides waves like round bottoms. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned |
spondoms really work! (BS)
whew...... lot's of big words and hot air blowing around in here!...
which by the way might be heavier than CO2 or NO2?.... and certainly seems more prevalent. See you at the Gauley... spondom free! Craig http://community.webtv.net/juskanuit/juskanuit "just canoe it" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com